What the NR1 report is and why it matters
The National Report is part of the reporting mechanism under Article 29 of the Nagoya Protocol, which requires Parties to provide information on implementation. In India’s case, the newly submitted NR1 follows the country’s Interim National Report, which had been submitted in November 2017. The first full national report now gives a broader picture of what happened after that point, covering a little more than eight years of implementation.
The timing of the report is significant because the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol had emphasized that first national reports should be submitted by 28 February 2026 so that they could inform the second assessment and review of the Protocol’s effectiveness. India’s submission on 27 February 2026 therefore came just before that deadline and places the country within the global reporting cycle established under the treaty framework.
In simple terms, the report matters because it is not just a procedural filing. It is an official record of how India says it has regulated access to genetic resources and ensured the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization. That includes how permissions are granted, how benefits are shared with communities and knowledge holders, and how international compliance information is published and monitored.
What the Nagoya Protocol is about
The Nagoya Protocol is an international agreement under the Convention on Biological Diversity that aims at the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. According to the CBD, it entered into force on 12 October 2014. The protocol is designed to create legal clarity around access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing arrangements, while also supporting biodiversity conservation and the sustainable use of its components.
The CBD also says the Access and Benefit-sharing Clearing-House is a platform established under Article 14 of the Protocol to exchange information, improve transparency and support monitoring along the value chain, including through the use of Internationally Recognised Certificates of Compliance. That matters for India’s NR1 because one of the major implementation points highlighted in the report is the number of IRCCs published by the country on the ABS Clearing-House.
For a biodiversity-rich country such as India, the protocol has practical importance. It connects environmental governance with research access, commercial utilization, traditional knowledge, benefit-sharing and legal compliance. The report therefore sits at the intersection of biodiversity law, local governance, conservation policy and international treaty implementation.
India’s legal and institutional framework
According to the official government release, India’s access and benefit-sharing framework operates under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, supported by the Biological Diversity Rules, 2024 and the ABS Regulations, 2025. The release says this framework is implemented through a three-tier institutional structure consisting of the National Biodiversity Authority, State Biodiversity Boards or Union Territory Biodiversity Councils, and Biodiversity Management Committees at the local level.
This institutional structure is central to the story told in the NR1 report. At the national level, the NBA handles approvals and oversight for entities covered by the legal framework. At the state and Union Territory level, biodiversity boards and councils handle their part of the approval and regulatory process. At the local level, Biodiversity Management Committees are important because they connect implementation to communities, local governance and benefit-sharing mechanisms on the ground.
The government says that more than 2,76,653 Biodiversity Management Committees have been established across the country. That number is one of the most important figures in the report because it reflects the scale of local-level institutionalization under India’s biodiversity governance system.
Key implementation numbers from 2017 to 2025
The reporting period data released by the government gives a clearer idea of the scale of India’s implementation. During 2017 to 2025, India issued a total of 12,830 ABS approvals. Of these, 5,913 approvals were issued by the National Biodiversity Authority for entities under Section 3(2) of the Biological Diversity Act, covering matters such as research, bio-survey, commercial utilization, transfer of research results, intellectual property rights and third-party transfers.
In addition, 6,917 approvals were issued by State Biodiversity Boards and Union Territory Biodiversity Councils for entities covered under Section 7 of the Act for commercial utilization of biological resources. These figures are important because they show that the implementation mechanism has not remained theoretical. It has been actively used across research, commercial and regulatory contexts over the reporting period.
India also published 3,556 Internationally Recognised Certificates of Compliance on the ABS Clearing-House. The government release says this represents over 60 percent of the global total. In policy terms, that is one of the strongest claims in the report because it positions India as a major contributor to the transparency and compliance architecture of the protocol.
Benefit-sharing numbers and what they show
One of the central themes of the Nagoya Protocol is not merely access to resources, but the sharing of benefits arising from their use. India’s report includes detailed figures on this front. The government says that during the reporting period, ₹216.31 crore was mobilised through NBA approvals. Out of this, ₹139.69 crore was disbursed to benefit claimers, including Biodiversity Management Committees, local communities, farmers and traditional knowledge holders.
The same release says that an additional ₹51.96 crore was generated through approvals granted by State Biodiversity Boards and Union Territory Biodiversity Councils for commercial utilization by Indian entities under Section 7 of the Act. These figures give the report a concrete economic dimension. They show that the access and benefit-sharing framework is linked to actual monetary flows rather than existing only as a legal principle.
The report also notes that 395 NBA approvals incorporated non-monetary benefits. These included capacity building, training, technology transfer and collaborative research. That part is important because the protocol does not treat benefit-sharing only as cash payments. It also recognizes non-monetary forms of benefit that can strengthen scientific, institutional and community capacity over time.
Monitoring, foreign bioresources and compliance tracking
The government’s summary of the report also says India monitors the utilization of foreign-sourced biological resources and associated traditional knowledge in line with the protocol. According to the release, 41 declarations were received by the National Biodiversity Authority in Form 10 for the use of foreign bioresources, as required under Rule 18 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2024 and Section 36A of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
This part of the report matters because it shows that implementation is not limited to regulating access to Indian resources alone. It also involves monitoring utilization patterns where foreign-sourced biological resources are involved, which is part of the broader compliance and traceability logic of the Nagoya Protocol framework.
The publication of IRCCs on the ABS Clearing-House is also central here. The CBD describes the clearing-house as a key tool for legal certainty, transparency and monitoring. India’s use of that system, as reflected in the 3,556 certificates cited in the report, becomes one of the report’s strongest compliance indicators.
Training, awareness and local participation
Another major section of the official release concerns awareness and capacity building. The government says 2,56,393 individuals were trained through 3,724 workshops and programmes during the reporting period. It also refers to more than 600 capacity-building initiatives conducted nationwide.
These numbers are important because treaty implementation on biodiversity and benefit-sharing depends heavily on institutions and people understanding how the system works. Local committees, farmers, researchers, state boards, knowledge holders and administrative officials all need some level of operational familiarity with the rules, procedures and obligations. Training figures therefore serve as a practical measure of how widely the framework has been taken into the field.
When read together with the number of Biodiversity Management Committees established across the country, the capacity-building data gives the report a second major theme beyond approvals and money: the effort to build implementation capacity at multiple levels of governance.
Why this report is important for India
The NR1 report is important because it brings several strands of India’s biodiversity governance into one official account. It links national law, state-level institutions, local committees, international reporting, monetary and non-monetary benefit-sharing, and compliance mechanisms under the CBD framework. In doing so, it offers a consolidated picture of how India has tried to operationalize access and benefit-sharing over the 2017 to 2025 period.
The report is also important because it feeds into the broader international review of how well the Nagoya Protocol is functioning. The COP-MOP decision on the second assessment and review specifically linked first national reports to that review process. That means India’s NR1 is not only a domestic milestone. It also becomes part of a larger global assessment of whether the Protocol is delivering on its objectives.
The official government release says the report contributes to Target 13 of India’s updated National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. That places the report within India’s wider biodiversity policy agenda and not only within a narrow treaty-reporting exercise.
What happens next
With the report now submitted, the next stage is likely to be its use in international review, policy reference and future implementation planning. National reports under environmental treaties often become source documents for assessing progress, identifying capacity gaps and refining regulatory practice. In India’s case, the first national report provides a baseline for judging how the ABS framework has functioned through approvals, certificates, benefit flows and institutional growth.
The headline fact remains the reporting window itself: India’s first national report on the Nagoya Protocol covers the period from 1 November 2017 to 31 December 2025. But the larger story behind that headline is a detailed one, involving local biodiversity committees, legal rules, benefit-sharing mechanisms, international compliance records and a reporting exercise tied directly to the future review of the Protocol.
